Posted
by
timothyon Monday November 04, 2013 @09:06AM
from the more-effective-than-at-the-post-office dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Brian Tumulty writes at USA Today that the union representing airport screeners for the Transportation Security Administration says Friday's fatal shooting of an agent at Los Angeles International Airport highlights the need for armed security officers at every airport checkpoint. The screeners, who earn up to $30,000 annually, have not requested to carry guns themselves, but they do want an armed security officer present at every checkpoint says J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents the screeners. "Every local airport has its own security arrangement with local police to some type of contract security force," says Cox. "There is no standardization throughout the country. Every airport operates differently. Obviously at L.A. there were a fair number of local police officers there." Congress may investigate the issue but Sen. Tom Carper, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, says that "there will be an appropriate time — after all the facts have been gathered and thoughtfully analyzed —to review existing policy and procedure to see what, if anything, can be learned from this unfortunate incident to help prevent future tragedies." TSA officials say that they don't anticipate a change in the agency security posture at the moment, but "passengers may see an increased presence of local law enforcement officers throughout the country.""

There are already armed cops (real cops, not TSA thugs) at every security checkpoint I've been to except one particular small airport, where he was in the lobby since there was no room, or nead, between the xray and the airplane.

I think this is a good idea. If/when future similar incidents occur, all those that are NOT carrying a firearm will be secondary targets. The poor guy who's carrying is just going to be the first guy shot, giving everyone else a slight chance to duck and hide.

Wow. You didn't even manage to read through to the second sentence of the summary:"The screeners, who earn up to $30,000 annually, have not requested to carry guns themselves, but they do want an armed security officer present at every checkpoint."

Hint: "Armed security officers" can also be untrained overpaid mouthbreathers with power trip issues.

All it takes for them to get involved in a situation is a nod from one of the currently employed untrained overpaid mouthbreathers with power trip issues and one of the the newly employed untrained overpaid mouthbreathers with power trip issues will be right there to help.

Hypothetical situation but one that seems all to scarily real now - passenger, perhaps running a bit late for their plane, becomes more short-tempered after perceiving idiocy at the hands of the TSA and makes a snarky comment regarding the legitimacy of TSA employees' parentage. Or perhaps, as has happened before, an outraged parent or sibling goes ballistic at their sobbing relative being groped or any one of a thousand potential reasons for getting stressed out in a security line. TSA rent-a-cop, perceiving a vastly over-inflated threat, pulls their sidearm and levels it in someone's face. What happens next?

Naturally, even after the first ten innocent people are shot, it'll be justifiable since the TSA can't take any chances and I'm sure any and all official enquiries will put all the wrongdoing at the feet of that parent or overly stressed sales rep.

Which is an absolutely understandable request from the point of view of the TSA screeners.

"Look, government policy is putting us in harm's way. We are now targets. We think we should be protected from loonies. Armed guards to shoot any such loonies is one method we might be protected."

Assuming the TSA checkpoints remain, it is not a ridiculous idea and the union - nominally representing the screeners - are quite right to make this request since the welfare of those screeners is their business . The screeners themselves, however much they may be gaining advantage from the program, are not the ones who have created the policy that provides those jobs (and, from my limited experience with them, those I have met think the program is as stupid as we do, but one does not turn down a job these days). So I can hardly blame the screeners for making a fuss about the need for more protection. However, as citizens of this country, we have other things to consider, such as:

- Do we want to turn our country into an armed camp with soldiers at every corner?- While the soldiers might help protect the screeners, will they themselves just be another target?- Are there any alternatives to armed guards (bullet-proof boxes for the screeners, or the ever-popular "arm everyone" meme?)- Is the TSA screening program effective and might it not be better just rid the country of the program - and thus the need for the armed guards as well.

So rather than just lambast the union - and the TSA screeners - for making this justified request, perhaps it might be better to use this as an opportunity to re-evaluate the TSA program entirely in a moment when its supporters just may be more willing to listen to alternatives?

"Look, government policy is putting us [pedestrians] in harm's way[--sidewalks near streets]. We are now targets[--I don't doubt more pedestrians have been killed on sidewalks than TSA agents have even been shot at]. We think we should be protected from loonies[, which is just about everyone, if you're paranoid enough, which is more or less a requirement when motor vehicles are zooming by you at 30MPH]. Armed guards to shoot any such loonies is one method we might be protected [because nothing says safe lik

There are some places where that seems fine, but I'm thinking LA? That's a lousy salary....

Yes, but it appears to be wrong. According to tsasalary.com [tsasalary.com], TSA inspectors earn an average of $45,000, and earn even more in high cost cities. Other links corroborate this amount, while none list a salary as low as $30k. Even the lowest starting salary is higher than that.

...armed gunman opens fire on unarmed targets, and the logical response is to request that his targets be allowed to arm themselves to fend off future attacks of a similar nature. Remind me again why it's practically impossible for me to purchase a handgun to defend myself in California?

The California political class went ape-shit when the Black Panthers made a habit of wearing rifles slung over their shoulders back in the 1970s. They're scared to death of proles being able to resist the police.

Which trains? Not on Amtrak (federal regs). Have you heard of any hijackings on Amtrak trains lately?

Come to think of it, have you heard of any hijackings on planes lately? After 9/11 they came up with an ingenious defense - they lock the door to the cockpit. I doubt that will be central to the plot of Die Hard 6, but it works.

Don't say that. You will scare a liberal....They will never go out again.

That's funny, this liberal, and many others he knows, aren't scared at all to walk down the street, even without a gun, and even in big bad cities. I wonder why some people are scared of their own shadows though, such that they feel unsafe walking down the street unarmed. Perhaps they can get help for their unfounded fears, and come to realize that they're much more likely to get hurt or killed in a car accident.

So if there's a mall shooting the solution is armed guards in every mall? If there's a school shooting the solution is armed guards in every school? Every bus station, train station, subway station, park and so on until there's a whole army of armed guards running around? The point of the secuity control is that nobody gets to bring anything on board to crash or hijack the plane and in that respect, mission accomplished. It's not a general defense against a random person pulling out a gun and opening fire, not any more than any other place.

back around 1990 there WAS a mass shooting in the food court of the mall across the street from my office (Perimeter Mall in suburban Atlanta). forget the exact casualty count but there were multiple victims, it was sad but people realized it was an unfortunate isolated incident/not the first wave of an invasion & life went back to normal pretty quickly. I'd bet you a fairly expensive dinner you could take a poll of patrons there now & less than 5% would even know this incident ever happened...

soooo... shooting happened, people grieved for a few days & nearly 1/4 century later few people even remember it (I probably wouldn't if I didn't work with people who were there) and there have been exactly ZERO recurrences despite the conspicuous absence of a bear patrol - go figure...

I whole heartedly condemn the shooter, both in principle as well as pragmatically b/c people are already seizing the opportunity to tar anyone w/legitimate criticisms of tsa w/same brush as the shooter ("you're just an anti-govt nut!!!"). I wouldn't have thought it possible but this incident is a significant setback for any hope of meaningful reform...

soooo... shooting happened, people grieved for a few days & nearly 1/4 century later few people even remember it (I probably wouldn't if I didn't work with people who were there) and there have been exactly ZERO recurrences despite the conspicuous absence of a bear patrol - go figure...

On the other hand, immediately after the shooting there was a huge surge in the number of people seeking and getting Weapons Carry Licenses. So... I suspect that on an average day in a suburban Atlanta mall today there are a handful of armed people. I'm not saying that's what's preventing shootings, but I do suspect that it will terminate any that do occur in the future fairly quickly, as happened last year in Portland.

Yep, that's was I came to say. If you remove the target, then you will not have the shooting. Perhaps it wouldn't be everybody's target, but in this case the TSA people were the target. If you go and make the TSA even more powerful and oppressive you will just end up with more people targeting that very group. So yeah, get rid of the TSA and you get rid of the target for the shooting.

TSA has been looking for an excuse to arm it's people. Watch them try to turn this incident into that excuse. Mind you, arming ex-hamburger flippers will endanger the public more than protect it, but arming TSA goons would be a huge step in proper bureaucratic empire building.

Want protection from nutcases? Sorry, that's not gonna happen - in a nation of more than 300 million people, there will always be nutcases.

Want to reduce the target-rich environment that is the TSA checkpoint? That's easy, get rid of TSA and let the airports and airlines deal with security.

Also, the teacher's union is calling for smaller class sizes and higher pay. It should surprise no one that a union is calling for something that would enlarge itself and create higher paying jobs for its members.

Also, it's a really dumb idea. I felt a lot less safe back in 2002 when there were soldiers, most not old enough to drink, at the airport with semi-automatic assault rifles.

What they need to do is fix the real issues with check points. Get rid of the security theater, the 3.4 oz fluid limits, the shoes removals, the body scanners, the biggest of all being the understaffing of the checkpoints that allow the mass lines that would attract a terrorist to begin with and so on. Start training the TSA on real security measures and start teach training them on profiling. When's the last time you heard about an Isreali plane being hijacked - and they let you bring a pocket-knife on board?

The problem with the TSA isn't the members of the TSA, they are doing what they are trained to do. The problem is that Congress is overseeing the TSA and allowing politics to trump security. It's like getting mad at the IRS when the IRS is only doing what congress told them to do. Get mad at congress for giving them the byzantine rules to begin with.

The TSA should be staffed by real armed Federal Officers, with real training, and real skills. Start by phasing in the replacement of the current supervisors with real officers and work your way from there. The next thing they should do is follow the Federal Reserve model and make the TSA semi-independent from regular politics so that they can focus more on security and less on politics.

The day the color codes, shoes removals, 3.4 oz removals and similar useless rules go and get replaced by having the (usually unmanned) additional screening checkpoints getting opened up is the day you know the TSA has finally started to get security.

What they need to do is fix the real issues with check points. Get rid of the security theater, the 3.4 oz fluid limits, the shoes removals, the body scanners, the biggest of all being the understaffing of the checkpoints that allow the mass lines that would attract a terrorist to begin with and so on.

Like: If you insist on undressing and re-dressing jackets, shoes, belts and laptops, give the people some proper "dressing room" designed space. Ever tried to undress your shoues while standing up and with no free hands as you are already holding your carry-on?

And doing that in a queue with some TSA goon trying to make you do it even faster. I wouldn't know of a better nmethod on how to inflict stress and pressure on people. And everyone will snap u

They're referring to "Predictive Profiling", which is basically a system in which you start from the aggressor's general method of attack and work backwards to determine specific behaviors that might be indicative of their attempt to commit such an attack. Proponents actually disapprove of racial profiling as a methodology, because it introduces a weak spot in the security system. (i.e. recruit a white european woman if they're looking for dark-skinned arabic men with beards)

One of the big things that makes it relevant here is the concept of end-to-end security: The idea that people should be interacting with security personnel repeatedly but casually throughout their time in the airport, not just at one high-intensity checkpoint. If they have to talk to a security guy at the parking lot, entrance, baggage check, security point, boarding area, and cinnabon then there's a good chance they'll eventually let something slip, get noticed, or crack under pressure. The important part of that is that the security guys should not be threatening everyone, just making pleasant conversation and keeping their eyes open.

Under such a system, there would be no single checkpoint with lots of people bottled up as waiting targets. It might also have allowed earlier personnel (in the parking lot or by the entrance) to spot the threat before he reached his destination.

I can't wait to see all the negligent discharges that will occur. Unfortunately the fat, child molesting, unqualified meter maids will take out a small child. None of them are LEO qualified much less allowed to look weapons and touch people.

If the LAX shooter had been interested in mowing down passengers instead of TSA agents, then armed guards at the TSA checkpoints would have done nothing to protect those passengers. At LAX in places like Terminal 3, the lines to the security checkpoints can flow out of the building and onto the sidewalk creating a massive concentration of terrorist targets. Protecting them 100% with armed guards would require 10 times the number of agents that are currently employed. Providing armed guards at the checkpoints themselves only protects those around the checkpoints i.e. the TSA agents themselves.

If anything the best way to protect the passengers is to process them from the street and into the secured terminal at a faster pace, which would require a huge increase in TSA checkpoints. This is an inherently parallelizable task, but would require money to be spent. But terminals in places such as LAX aren't designed for such parallel operations. Using Terminal 3 as an example, you enter from street level then go up a flight of stairs/escalator, following an S-shaped path that snakes around back on itself before arriving at the security checkpoint. Once there, there is only enough room for 2 or 3 parallel operations at once.

BTW last time I was flying out of Orlando I encountered a private company that would sell you the ability to jump to the front of the TSA queue. So instead of building out the infrastructure to better accommodate the passengers in light of having to go through the TSA, the airport grants a license to this company to exploit the frustrations and $$ of the people in the queue. (Which is turn pisses off the other passengers who experience smug people pushing in front of them in the queue and highlighting of how class based US society is).

After hearing of the guy who was left alone because he wasn't working for the TSA, it seemed like this guy wasn't just out for a killing spree or some anti-government nut job, but had a very specific reason to hate the TSA.

I can't help but wonder if he was molested as a child and the TSA's enhanced screening procedures set him off. The TSA's official training materials specifically give tips on how to handle young children. It's interesting to contrast it with the training given to parents who participate in cub/boy scout events, so they know how to recognize inappropriate behavior and potential risks from pervs. Having done the scout training first and seen some of the TSA materials after, it really stands out as a how-to program for pedophiles.

After hearing of the guy who was left alone because he wasn't working for the TSA, it seemed like this guy wasn't just out for a killing spree or some anti-government nut job, but had a very specific reason to hate the TSA.

I've been wondering that myself. The TSA, at least in their normal operation, is annoying but hardly monsters that deserve a vendetta. I'm guessing there's a specific event - something that happened to a loved one or family member, perhaps - that triggered this shooter. I'm also guessing we'll never hear about it; that would be just awful for security, to hear there might be some justification.

what could a TSA agent possibly do that would be justification for shooting?

Truly justified in a legal sense? Nothing. But if you're already twitchy and you've had say, a girlfriend or your mother, scanned/groped/made to partially undress, etc. it could easily set you off. Heck, 80% of what these guys do would, in another setting, get you slapped or punched in the mouth.

IMHO it is another example of a mentally ill person that did not get the help he needed. Budgets for mental health programs have been slashed for decades and are less than bare bones in favor for useless programs like the tsa.

TSA screeners often face physical and verbal attacks, but "there has never been
anything life-threatening before," Cox said.

Duh! The whole point of the TSA screeners is that they should face life-threatening danger. A bomb is life threatening and dangerous. A bomb that explodes is worse. If TSA screeners aren't going to be putting themselves in life-threatening situations they have no business being there at all. Come to think of it, just the last part.

Don't get me wrong, the TSA are constitution breaking assholes, that do a million times more harm than even the theoretical good they could do.

But, they are searching people for guns and other contraband. And when they find some, what are they supposed to do? Ask the criminal carrying a weapon to calmly surrender to the unarmed TSA agents (the most hated people in all of the USA), so that you can be detained without trial for the next twenty years and tortured for information?

I was taking a flight in 2008. I was in one of those long and winding lines waiting to go through security.

Someone in the middle of the line answers their cell phone.

A security guard from across the room points at him and shouts "NO CELL PHONES". Dude doesn't even realize he's being yelled at, so the guard INSTANTLY rips the cordon off, still pointing at the cell phone holder. Is marching towards him, pushing through the crowd, hand on (thankfully holstered and bolted) gun, shouting "NO CELL PHONES PUT IT AWAY!"

That's who they want to hire-- except they want to give them automatic assault weapons and no oversight

I haven't flown since 2008, swore off doing so once the rapey scanners came in. Most assuredly will NOT even reconsider with this policy in place.

Because after all, armed guards in charge of protecting "national security" at any cost will never overreact, make someone like, say, a mother with her child believe she's doing something wrong, make her nervous, then chase her down the streets of Washington and execute her in front of her baby.

Isn't the union representing the screeners? MY question is - who gets the kickback for the contract on the new armed guards? It's unthinkable that no one will. How about hiring Blackwater? They seemed pretty good at shooting civilians.

I personally love how if we americans demand to arm our selves from protection we are somehow the bad guys in the eyes of the government, yet when one of their own gets shot its time to arm up! hypocrisy at its best people

Especially coming from the TSA (yeah, yeah, it's the Union, not the TSA...pfffft) who used to get the panties in a twist over fingernail clippers and still does over a tube of toothpaste.

The Feds should look at this incident as a warning strip on the road. When you stray from the straight and narrow, it makes a huge racket to wake you up. The excesses of the Federal government are increasing every day and are starting to push some of the less stable over the edge. How long until it's not just some crazy guy off his meds and a normal person with a legitimate grievance...like a loved one being denied care under Obamacare?

The problem is, we have a bunch of pansy people who believe that there is NEVER EVER a good reason to have an armed rebellion. These are the people I'm concerned about, because they are the ones walking us down the path of complete tyranny.

I Suggest that people read the Declaration of Independence. The original "Boston Tea Party" was over less than what is going on now. There is nothing sacred about a "federal government" that is hell bent on ruling us with iron fists and jack-booted thugs. I just wish peop

How long until it's not just some crazy guy off his meds and a normal person with a legitimate grievance...like a loved one being denied care under Obamacare?

Not as long until some unformed idiot poses a question like that.

You do know that "Obamacare" isn't an insurance plan or insurance company - right? You do know that the ACA only specifies *minimum* levels that all insurance plans must provide - right? You do know that all those plans are offered by private insurance companies - right? You do know that *private* insurance companies deny care all the fucking time, except now, under the ACA, they have fewer avenues to do so (no more: life-time limits or denials based on pre-existing conditions - before or after the fact) - right?

I'm not sure what Davy Jones (the guy from the Monkees?) has to do with this, but the Democrats in the house and senate are looking pretty good after the shutdown debacle. I'd be willing to bet that polls will reflect the public blaming Obama for the Obamacare issues, and not congress. What little political capital the republicans gain from this will be ruined by whatever insane things GOP house members like Ted Cruz do or say from now until 2014.

At no point in this article does it explain why her problems are the result of Obamacare. Obama said you can keep your current insurance, but the implication is that Obamacare will not stop you from keeping your insurance, not that Obamacare will force every insurance company to keep offering the same insurance to it's customers whether they want to or not.

Well... They almost stopped me from traveling once because I asked a question about something. The guy then said, "do you want to travel today?" I said, "yes." He said, "then be quiet." If I had been single and not traveling with others, I might have protested, but instead I played "good sheep."

The TSA has armed guards. They just aren't the TSA, which is NOT a police agency, and why they are not armed. We have Airport Police for exactly this reason. And they did their job. You cannot stop a nut with a gun, and it is a rare event. The solution is not to take away guns (Airports are gun free zones, aren't they?) but rather to understand that you cannot prevent bad things from happening, without living in a tyranny state.

Who do you think make up the union if not the TSA screeners? I am sick and tired of the overreaction to these random events whether it be aircraft crashing into a building, a workplace shooting, a bomb detonation at a public event, etc. I do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting police officers or military in any venue.

In Germany in the midst of real constant terrorism in the 70s and 80s by the RAF, many Polizei would be roaming around the airports with submachine guns obviously displayed.

No TSA, no taking off shoes, not liquid limits, no confiscating knitting needles, just a clear message that if you try something you will be hosed down by 9mm. They never attacked a German airport. But they did attack the US air base at Ramstein.

Who do you think make up the union if not the TSA screeners? I am sick and tired of the overreaction to these random events whether it be aircraft crashing into a building, a workplace shooting, a bomb detonation at a public event, etc. I do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting police officers or military in any venue.

I live in Europe where it's perfectly normal to see a few soldiers with automatic weapons roaming around airports and large train stations.

And frankly, when I compare the inconvenience of having six or twelve soldiers wandering around (none) to the arrogant attitude, invasive groping or scanning and general annoyance level of the TSA punks...I'll take the soldiers any day.

You realize that the last major threats on aircraft that got by TSA were all stopped by the passengers? That any major event that a shooter has gone nuts and started killing people within an armed area were a maximum 1 to 2 people? That shooters have specifically targeted areas with limited access to firearms to maximize the amount of damage they can do before being stopped?
Have you ever heard of a shootout at an NRA convention? Mass killing in a gun store? A hijacking of a military transport?

You realize that the last major threats on aircraft that got by TSA were all stopped by the passengers? That any major event that a shooter has gone nuts and started killing people within an armed area were a maximum 1 to 2 people? That shooters have specifically targeted areas with limited access to firearms to maximize the amount of damage they can do before being stopped?

Have you ever heard of a shootout at an NRA convention? Mass killing in a gun store? A hijacking of a military transport?

If you look at your statistics you will find that if you want to stop gun violence you do the same steps to handle the majority of crime in the US. Handle the poverty problem. A look at your gun homicide rate will match up to your regular homicide rate as well as your locations of poverty and jobless in the US. It does not correlate to gun ownership density. or even gun laws. It only matches up to poverty rates.

The shooting at the NRA convention was an April Fools joke. I know you hoped it was true, but that kind of thing doesn't actually happen.

There was a shooting at a gun show a while back, some idiot brought in a loaded shotgun to sell it, and it went off when he set it on a table. In the middle of a hall with many armed people, that was the only shot fired.

One shot, everybody looks, sees some guy looking scared and stupid, a couple hurt, no further shots fired, go about your business or render aid. It is quite a different scenario from some guy coming in blazing.

BTW, since 1934, there have been two murders committed in the US with one of the hundreds of thousands of legally owned machine guns. One of them was a corrupt cop killing a drug informant. In both cases, it was a single murder that could have been committed with any weapon.

Tell that to the two guys in Detroit who died last month when a minor incident of road rage between two licensed gun carrying drivers (with families in the cars) escalated into a gun battle where they killed each other.I assume that since they each had a gun that they each felt they could enforce their opinion over the other. When it turned out that they both had a gun, it escalated beyond standoff to death... not too polite.

"Civilian" isn't well-defined in most modes of its usage; it's a context-dependent term. Are police civilians? To soldiers they are, but police and non-police civilians often use the term to distinguish non-police from police. Many members of many government agencies do the same thing, do distinguish between those who have government-granted authority from those who don't. For that matter, people in some non-governmental groups use the term to distinguish members of their group.

If you like, you can restrict the term to it's pure meaning of "not a soldier", but that just leaves a vacuum, a need for some term to fill its role in other contexts. Or you can just accept that it has different meanings in different contexts, and that it's nearly always quite clear what is meant.

Employees are responsible for what their union does.
I will take back that statement for any set of employees that sack the entire union leadership when they do something bad.
But they do not.
I am sorry a guy died. I feel really bad for the family. But....
Fuck the TSA.

No way! One guard was killed at the airport attack. With hundreds frightened morons whipping out their guns LAX would have turned into the OK Corral. Just getting the normal cops to not shoot too many innocent bystanders is hard enough.

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation, but more people die there every year than most of the rest of the country combined.

Obama has done nothing related to gun control in his years in office except make it easier for people to own whatever type of firearm they want.

He has signed legislation allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrack trains.

He signed legislation that makes concealed carry permits valid in one state valid in all states.

He has never pushed an "assault" weapons ban or even restrictions on large capacity magazines.

His justice department has never challenged any of the numerous state level laws that have increased gun rights (Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, etc.) or any of the stand-your-ground laws.

He is one of the most pro-gun Presidents in recent times and yet right wing delusionals (and firearm business interests) still trot out he is trying to take away guns.

Because you don't sell more guns as quickly if the president is seen as letting you keep buying them. It's all a marketing gimmick by the gun industry. "Obammy's gonna take yur guns! Buy more now!!" And they line up. They say the same thing any time a Democrat is elected.

Are you against free enterprise with your truthful statements? What are you, some sort of commie pinko?!

1) Obama has done nothing related to gun control in his years in office except make it easier for people to own whatever type of firearm they want.

2) He has signed legislation allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrack trains.

3)He signed legislation that makes concealed carry permits valid in one state valid in all states.

4) He has never pushed an "assault" weapons ban or even restrictions on large capacity magazines.

5) His justice department has never challenged any of the numerous state level laws that have increased gun rights (Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, etc.) or any of the stand-your-ground laws.

6) He is one of the most pro-gun Presidents in recent times and yet right wing delusionals (and firearm business interests) still trot out he is trying to take away guns.

You stop spreading lies.

Unlike you, I'll actually cite my facts

1) Whatever type of firearm they want? Not likely: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/obama-issues-new-executive-orders-against-guns/

2) This is technically true, but you are leaving out a key part: The law allows firearm owners to *check* their guns in luggage on Amtrak, not carry. Just as on a flight: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-laws-obama-has-signed-2012-12

3) I have found no news or information confirming this. Here's North Dakota's website on reciprocity: http://www.ag.nd.gov/BCI/CW/reciprocity.htm Doesn't look nation wide to me.

4) Another lie. Obama has publicly stated his opposition to high capacity mags: http://www.policymic.com/articles/23489/obama-gun-control-plan-high-capacity-magazine-is-public-enemy-number-one

5) His justice department has challenged Florida's stand-your-ground laws after the Trayvon Martin shooting. You can google the sources yourself... they're countless.

All of the proposed things are about gun safety, not about taking guns away from people. The second amendment is safe, kids.

Chicken little, the sky is not falling. You don';t have to snuggle with your shotgun in bed in fear of Obama "taking" it from you - well, unless you fail the background check (but then what were you doing with it in the first place).

This is a great idea. It clearly tells the public that the shooting at LAX was not the work of a crazy extremist but rather reflects the growing attitude of many Americans. And that they expect it to continue. It will help reinforce the "Them vs. Us" image that TSA has worked so hard to build in the last decade. How could you not want some lower IQ TSA type nervously standing around with a gun, looking for someone to shoot if they dare complain about pat downs that rise to the level of sexual molestation

It was directly their presence that got an unarmed passenger shot. For the public safety, they should removed and corralled into a single location in the country, so that should another disgruntled, armed man want to shoot them, they will be isolated from the general public.